12 ms·

"What I see is a future where AI handles the grunt work, freeing us up to focus on the truly human part of creation: the next step, the novel idea, the new inve

"What I see is a future where AI handles the grunt work, freeing us up to focus on the truly human part of creation: the next step, the novel idea, the new invention. If we don’t have to spend five years of our early careers doing repetitive tasks, that isn’t a threat, it’s a massive opportunity. It’s an acceleration of our potential." The problem is that only a fraction of software developer have the ability/skills to work on the hard problems. A much larger percentage will only be able to work on things like CRUD apps and grunt work. When these jobs are eliminated, many developers will be out of work.

anilgulecha 1y ago
IMO, if this ends up occuring, it will follow how other practitioner roles have evolved. Take medicine, and doctors for eg: there's a high bar to reach to be able to do a specialist surgery, until then you hone up your skills and practice. Compensation wise it isn't lucrative from the get-go, but can get so once you reach the specialist level. At that point they are liable for the work done. Hence such roles are typically licensed (CAs, lawyers, etc). So if I have to make a few 5 year predictions: 1. Key human engineer skills will be to take liabilty for the output produced by agents. You will be responsible for the signoff, and any good/bad that comes from it. 2. Some engineering roles/areas will become a "licensed" play - the way canada is for other engineering disciplines. 3. Compensation at the entry level will be lower, and the expected time to ramp up to productive level will be larger. 4. Careers will meaningfully start only at the senior level. At the junior level, your focus is to learn enough of the fundamentals, patterns and design principles so you reach the senior level and be a net positive in the team.
- turbofreak 1y ago
  Canada?? They can’t build a subway station in 5 years nevermind restructure a massive job sector like this lmao
  - bluefirebrand 1y ago
    You're being downvoted but you're actually spot on Calgary was supposed to have a new train line, planning has been in motion for years. Back in 2019 when I bought my house, the new train was supposed to open in 2025. As far as I know not a single piece of track has been placed yet. So... Yes
    - turbofreak 1y ago
      Yes this is status quo in Toronto but it’s a Canada-wide corruption issue. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/eglinton-crosstown-opening-june-ttc-1.7400691 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/eglinton-crosstown-op...
    - gnabgib 1y ago
      Hey, they knocked down Eau Claire. So.. progress?
- chii 1y ago
  > At the junior level, your focus is to learn enough of the fundamentals, patterns and design principles so you reach the senior level and be a net positive in the team. I suspect that juniors will not want to do this, because the end result of becoming a scenior is not lucrative enough given the pace of LLM advancement.
- AbstractH24 1y ago
  There’s a sweet spot right now to be in. Early enfough career to have gotten in the door, but young enfough to be mailable and open to new ways.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- fn-mote 1y ago
  Had to laugh at #4… that’s where I thought we were now.
- gitgud 1y ago
  1. Already true, no company will make the AI agent liable for its output, it’s always the programmer 2. Unlikely, as most software won’t result in death/injury… whereas a structural engineering project is much more life threatening. 3. I actually think entry level engineers will be expected to ramp up to productive levels much much quicker due to the help of AI 4. Already true
123yawaworht456 1y ago
90% of real grunt work is "stitch an extra appendage to this unholy abomination of God" or "*points at the screen* look at this shit, figure out why is it happening and fix it". LLMs are more or less useless for either of those things.
- zeta0134 1y ago
  An LLM can certainly try to consume an extremely poorly specified bug report, in half English half the user's native language, then consume the entire codebase and guess what the devil they're actually referring to. My guess is the humans are better at this, and I mostly speak from experience on two separate support floors that tried to add AI to that flow. It fails, miserably. It's not really possible for an LLM to pick up on the hidden complexities of the app that real users and developers internalize through practice. Almost by definition, they're not documented! Users "just know" and thus there is no training data to ingest. I'd estimate though that the vast, vast majority of bugs I've been assigned originate from one of these vague reports by a client paying us enough to care.
- csomar 1y ago
  LLMs are very good at fixing bugs. They do lack broader contexts and tools to navigate the codebase/interface. That's why Claude Code was such a breakthrough despite using the very same models you run on the chat.
  - xarope 1y ago
    very good at fixing bugs like these, which requires a senior developer to address and prompt? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44159166 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44159166 or this about MS pushing for more internal AI usage, and the resulting hilarity (or tragedy, depending if you are the one having to read the resulting code)? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44404067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44404067
- danielbln 1y ago
  I disagree, agentic LLMs are incredibly useful for both.
chii 1y ago
> A much larger percentage will only be able to work on things like CRUD apps and grunt work. which is lower valued, and thus it is economically "correct" to have them be replaced when an appropriate automation method is found. > When these jobs are eliminated, many developers will be out of work. like in the past, those developers will need to either move up the value chain, or move out into a different career. This has happened before, and will continue to happen until the day humanity reaches some sort of singularity or post-scarcity.
- bugglebeetle 1y ago
  > which is lower valued, and thus it is economically "correct" to have them be replaced when an appropriate automation method is found. Textbook example of why this “economic” form of analysis is naive, stupid, and short-sighted, (as is almost always the case). AI models will never obtain the ability to completely replace “low value work” (as that is not perfectly definable or able to be defined in advance for all cases), so in a scenario where all engineers devoted to these tasks are let go, what you would end up with is a engineers higher up the value chain being tasked with resolving the problems that result from when the AI fails, underperforms, or the assessment of a task’s value was incorrect. The cumulative effect of this would be a massive drain on the effectiveness of said engineers, as they’re now tasked with context switching from creative, high-value work to troubleshooting opaque, AI code slop.
  - chii 1y ago
    > AI models will never obtain the ability to completely replace “low value work” if this were truly the case, then companies that _didn't_ replace the "low value work" by ai and continued to use people will outperform and outcompete. My prediction is entirely predicated on the ability for the LLM to do the replacement. A second alternative would be that the cost of the "sloppy" ai code is externalized, which is not ideal but the past history has any bearing, externalization of costs is rampant in corporate profit struggles.
  - blackbear_ 1y ago
    > AI models will never obtain the ability to completely replace “low value work" Maybe, but this is not the meaning of replacement in this context and it need not hold for the "economic" reasoning to work. All that matters is that AI makes developers more productive, as measured by number of (CRUD or whatever) apps per developer per unit of time. If this is true, then the current supply of apps can be provided by fewer developers, meaning that some of the current developers aren't needed anymore to sustain the current production level. In this scenario lower level engineers still exist, they are just able to do more in the same time by using AI.
csomar 1y ago
This. There are millions of software developers. There are hundreds (thousands?) that are working on the cutting edge of things. Think of popular open source projects used by the masses, usually there is one or a handful of developers doing most of the work. If the other side of the puzzle (integration) becomes automated, 95% or more of software developers are redundant.
nyarlathotep_ 1y ago
> The problem is that only a fraction of software developer have the ability/skills to work on the hard problems. A much larger percentage will only be able to work on things like CRUD apps and grunt work. It's also availability of those jobs, even for those who would otherwise be capable. Some of the highest-skill software jobs, things like writing a cross-platform renderer for a AAA game engine, or JIT compiler optimizations or something else esoteric are very scant jobs and only ever needed in very small quantities at very specific places. The overwhelming majority of work is some variety of CRUD with a website, and all of the "supporting cast" (CI/CD things, cloud stuff, etc). Ironically this is why LLMs are so successful at automating it, how many React repos are there on GitHub?

anilgulecha 1y ago

IMO, if this ends up occuring, it will follow how other practitioner roles have evolved. Take medicine, and doctors for eg: there's a high bar to reach to be able to do a specialist surgery, until then you hone up your skills and practice. Compensation wise it isn't lucrative from the get-go, but can get so once you reach the specialist level. At that point they are liable for the work done. Hence such roles are typically licensed (CAs, lawyers, etc). So if I have to make a few 5 year predictions: 1. Key human engineer skills will be to take liabilty for the output produced by agents. You will be responsible for the signoff, and any good/bad that comes from it. 2. Some engineering roles/areas will become a "licensed" play - the way canada is for other engineering disciplines. 3. Compensation at the entry level will be lower, and the expected time to ramp up to productive level will be larger. 4. Careers will meaningfully start only at the senior level. At the junior level, your focus is to learn enough of the fundamentals, patterns and design principles so you reach the senior level and be a net positive in the team.

turbofreak 1y ago
Canada?? They can’t build a subway station in 5 years nevermind restructure a massive job sector like this lmao
- bluefirebrand 1y ago
  You're being downvoted but you're actually spot on Calgary was supposed to have a new train line, planning has been in motion for years. Back in 2019 when I bought my house, the new train was supposed to open in 2025. As far as I know not a single piece of track has been placed yet. So... Yes
  - turbofreak 1y ago
    Yes this is status quo in Toronto but it’s a Canada-wide corruption issue. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/eglinton-crosstown-opening-june-ttc-1.7400691 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/eglinton-crosstown-op...
  - gnabgib 1y ago
    Hey, they knocked down Eau Claire. So.. progress?
chii 1y ago
> At the junior level, your focus is to learn enough of the fundamentals, patterns and design principles so you reach the senior level and be a net positive in the team. I suspect that juniors will not want to do this, because the end result of becoming a scenior is not lucrative enough given the pace of LLM advancement.
AbstractH24 1y ago
There’s a sweet spot right now to be in. Early enfough career to have gotten in the door, but young enfough to be mailable and open to new ways.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
fn-mote 1y ago
Had to laugh at #4… that’s where I thought we were now.
gitgud 1y ago
1. Already true, no company will make the AI agent liable for its output, it’s always the programmer 2. Unlikely, as most software won’t result in death/injury… whereas a structural engineering project is much more life threatening. 3. I actually think entry level engineers will be expected to ramp up to productive levels much much quicker due to the help of AI 4. Already true

123yawaworht456 1y ago

90% of real grunt work is "stitch an extra appendage to this unholy abomination of God" or "*points at the screen* look at this shit, figure out why is it happening and fix it". LLMs are more or less useless for either of those things.

zeta0134 1y ago
An LLM can certainly try to consume an extremely poorly specified bug report, in half English half the user's native language, then consume the entire codebase and guess what the devil they're actually referring to. My guess is the humans are better at this, and I mostly speak from experience on two separate support floors that tried to add AI to that flow. It fails, miserably. It's not really possible for an LLM to pick up on the hidden complexities of the app that real users and developers internalize through practice. Almost by definition, they're not documented! Users "just know" and thus there is no training data to ingest. I'd estimate though that the vast, vast majority of bugs I've been assigned originate from one of these vague reports by a client paying us enough to care.
csomar 1y ago
LLMs are very good at fixing bugs. They do lack broader contexts and tools to navigate the codebase/interface. That's why Claude Code was such a breakthrough despite using the very same models you run on the chat.
- xarope 1y ago
  very good at fixing bugs like these, which requires a senior developer to address and prompt? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44159166 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44159166 or this about MS pushing for more internal AI usage, and the resulting hilarity (or tragedy, depending if you are the one having to read the resulting code)? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44404067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44404067
danielbln 1y ago
I disagree, agentic LLMs are incredibly useful for both.

chii 1y ago

> A much larger percentage will only be able to work on things like CRUD apps and grunt work. which is lower valued, and thus it is economically "correct" to have them be replaced when an appropriate automation method is found. > When these jobs are eliminated, many developers will be out of work. like in the past, those developers will need to either move up the value chain, or move out into a different career. This has happened before, and will continue to happen until the day humanity reaches some sort of singularity or post-scarcity.

bugglebeetle 1y ago
> which is lower valued, and thus it is economically "correct" to have them be replaced when an appropriate automation method is found. Textbook example of why this “economic” form of analysis is naive, stupid, and short-sighted, (as is almost always the case). AI models will never obtain the ability to completely replace “low value work” (as that is not perfectly definable or able to be defined in advance for all cases), so in a scenario where all engineers devoted to these tasks are let go, what you would end up with is a engineers higher up the value chain being tasked with resolving the problems that result from when the AI fails, underperforms, or the assessment of a task’s value was incorrect. The cumulative effect of this would be a massive drain on the effectiveness of said engineers, as they’re now tasked with context switching from creative, high-value work to troubleshooting opaque, AI code slop.
- chii 1y ago
  > AI models will never obtain the ability to completely replace “low value work” if this were truly the case, then companies that _didn't_ replace the "low value work" by ai and continued to use people will outperform and outcompete. My prediction is entirely predicated on the ability for the LLM to do the replacement. A second alternative would be that the cost of the "sloppy" ai code is externalized, which is not ideal but the past history has any bearing, externalization of costs is rampant in corporate profit struggles.
- blackbear_ 1y ago
  > AI models will never obtain the ability to completely replace “low value work" Maybe, but this is not the meaning of replacement in this context and it need not hold for the "economic" reasoning to work. All that matters is that AI makes developers more productive, as measured by number of (CRUD or whatever) apps per developer per unit of time. If this is true, then the current supply of apps can be provided by fewer developers, meaning that some of the current developers aren't needed anymore to sustain the current production level. In this scenario lower level engineers still exist, they are just able to do more in the same time by using AI.

csomar 1y ago

This. There are millions of software developers. There are hundreds (thousands?) that are working on the cutting edge of things. Think of popular open source projects used by the masses, usually there is one or a handful of developers doing most of the work. If the other side of the puzzle (integration) becomes automated, 95% or more of software developers are redundant.

nyarlathotep_ 1y ago

> The problem is that only a fraction of software developer have the ability/skills to work on the hard problems. A much larger percentage will only be able to work on things like CRUD apps and grunt work. It's also availability of those jobs, even for those who would otherwise be capable. Some of the highest-skill software jobs, things like writing a cross-platform renderer for a AAA game engine, or JIT compiler optimizations or something else esoteric are very scant jobs and only ever needed in very small quantities at very specific places. The overwhelming majority of work is some variety of CRUD with a website, and all of the "supporting cast" (CI/CD things, cloud stuff, etc). Ironically this is why LLMs are so successful at automating it, how many React repos are there on GitHub?